Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER THREE

Part I

Verse 1: “It was around this time that John the Baptizer began delivering his message from God to the people. This was out in the rural area of Judea.”

To better understand what “baptizer” means here, let’s look at it from a Jewish perspective. According to the Torah (Genesis – Deuteronomy), one had to be ritually pure before entering the Tabernacle, and later the Temple, or to participate in any festivals. That’s because ritual purity could be lost in many ways by what one ate, touched, or was exposed to. Because of this, washing became the preeminent means of restoring one’s external purity. This matter is frequently mentioned in the Book of Leviticus.¹ Also, in the Jewish writings of the Rabbis, there are many chapters devoted to this subject.²

According to one Jewish scholar, the origin of this purification rite points back to Adam and Eve’s transgression in the Garden of Eden.³ A person who immerses himself in this bath participates in an obvious, living metaphor of purification, with the water, as it were, washing away the impurity brought on by Adam and Eve’s disobedience. Even though today there is no longer a Temple, observant Jews still immerse themselves in a ritual bath in obedience to the law.⁴ Keep this in mind each time you read about baptism in the New Testament so that the purpose of water baptism under the new covenant has more meaning.

Here, John the Baptizer proclaims that the old practice of immersion now has a new context: being cleansed internally from the impurities of one’s external sins. If there was anything that caused conflict between Jesus and the purity-minded Pharisees, it was on this point. Jesus had the audacity to say that no such outward cleansing could rinse away the inward filth of hypocrisy, lying, cheating and pretension that they practiced in their prayers and worship. When our Lord’s most quoted prophet said: “Come now,” says Adonai, “let’s talk this over together. Even if your sins are red like scarlet, they will be white as snow; even if they are red as crimson, they will be while like wool,”⁵ I’m sure He understood the deeper meaning of that cleansing power, and it wasn’t water.

We should also look at John the Baptizer’s choice of the rural area of Judea as the region for his ministry. We know that the Judean Desert lies southeast of Jerusalem and descends to the Dead Sea. It was in the southern part of this area where the Dead Sea Scrolls were first discovered in 1946, in what were identified as the Qumran Caves. The scrolls have been tied to an ancient Jewish sect that was well-known in John the Baptizer’s day called the “Essenes”, a branch of the Pharisees who conformed to the most rigid rules of Levitical purity while aspiring to the highest degree of holiness. They lived solely by the work of their hands and in a state of communal life, dedicating their time to study and devotion and to the practice of benevolence, and refrained as far as feasible from conjugal intercourse and sensual pleasures, in order to be initiated into the highest mysteries of heaven and help the expected Messianic time to come sooner. Some scholars believe that John the Baptizer was under their tutelage and thus his preaching and lifestyle resembled what is found in these scrolls.

Since John the Baptizer was the son of a priest, as were many of the Essenes, he would have fit in their commune nicely. However, that does not take away, nor add anything significant to, John’s ministry. The translators of the KJV chose to render the Greek word “baptistēs” as “baptist” instead of “baptizer” which is what the Greek noun means: “the one who baptizes.” As a matter of fact, Josephus wrote about him after the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, and refers to him as “John, that was called the baptizer.”⁶ So he was well-known by the Jews as the one who went around baptizing those who responded to his call for repentance. It was also recognized that this baptizer had emerged from the rural area of Judea. It should cause any reader to ask, “Why?” Why didn’t he go to the cities, especially Jerusalem.

Some of this will be answered later on as we study the life and ministry of John the Baptizer. But first, we are told quite explicitly: “It was the 15th year of the rule of Tiberius Caesar. These men were under Caesar: Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea; Herod, the ruler of Galilee; Philip, Herod’s brother, the ruler of Iturea and Trachonitis; Lysanias, the ruler of Abilene. Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests. During this time, John, the son of Zechariah, was living in the desert, and he received a message from God.”⁷ This helps us see what the political climate was. And second, his preaching such a gospel in the large city of Jerusalem or Capernaum could easily have caused not only the Jewish leaders to have him silenced, but the Romans as well. And thirdly, with the method of his ministry being anchored in water baptism, he needed a river so he could initiate all those who believed, into their new way of living for God.

A leading Jewish philosopher who lived during John the Baptizer’s era writes about this religious sect called the Essenes. As you read this, see how much you think it may have influenced what John the Baptizer preached and practiced.

“Palestine and Syria are not empty when it comes to exemplary wisdom and virtue. These countries include a large portion of the most populous portion that the Jews inhabit. There is a group the Jews called Essenes, who number over four thousand, as far as I know, and who derive their name from their pious living, because they are more than most men devoted to the service of God, not sacrificing living animals, but studying rather to preserve their own minds in a state of holiness and purity. In the first place, these men live in villages, avoiding all cities on account of the habitual lawlessness of those who inhabit them, well knowing that such a moral disease is contracted by associating with sinful men, just as a real disease might be contracted from an impure atmosphere, and that this would stamp an incurable evil on their souls. Of these men, some cultivating the earth, and others devoting themselves to those arts which are the result of peace, benefit both themselves and all those who come in contact with them, not storing up treasures of silver and of gold, nor acquiring vast sections of the earth out of a desire for ample revenues, but providing all things which are requisite for the natural purpose of being alive; for they more than any inhabitants of this land did not come from poor and destitute families, but rather they chose to live in poverty by their own design and ways of life than from any real deficiency of good fortune. Nevertheless, they are considered to be very rich when you judge them by their contentment and prudent living, which they have in great abundance. Among those men you will find no makers of arrows, or javelins, or swords, or helmets, or breastplates, or shields; no makers of arms or of military engines of combat; no one, in short, attending to any employment whatsoever connected with war, or even to any of those occupations even in peace which are easily perverted for wicked purposes; for they are utterly ignorant of all trade, and of all commercial dealings, and of all navigation. Instead, they renounce and stay away from everything which can possibly afford any inducement to greed; and there is not a single slave among them, but they are all free, aiding one another with a reciprocal interchange of doing each others jobs; and they condemn masters, not only as unjust, inasmuch as they corrupt the very principle of equality, but likewise as impious, because they destroy the ordinances of nature, which made them all equal, and brought them up like a mother, as if they were all legitimate brethren, not in name only, but in reality and truth. But in their view this natural relationship of all men to one another has been thrown into disorder by designing envy, continually wishing to surpass others in good fortune, and which has therefore engendered alienation instead of affection, and hatred instead of harmony; and avoiding the logical arguments of philosophy, deeming it as not necessary for the acquisition of virtue, leaving it to the word-catchers. And discard the intent of philosophy as being too sublime for human nature to master, leaving it to those who love to converse about complicated arguments (except, of course, any study that causes one to contemplate the existence of God and of the creation of the universe), devoting all their attention to the moral part of philosophy, using as instructors the laws of their country which it would have been impossible for the human mind to devise without divine inspiration. Now these laws they are taught at various times, but most often on the seventh day, for the seventh day is accounted sacred, on which they abstain from all other work, and frequent the sacred places which are called synagogues, and there they sit according to their age in classes, the younger ones sitting on the floor and listening to the older ones on the platform with eager attention in their order of worship. Then one of them takes up the holy scroll and reads from it. Then those who possess the greatest experience come forward and explain what was not easy to understand, since a great many precepts are delivered in puzzling modes of expression, and allegorically, as the old fashion has been; and thus the people are taught piety, and holiness, and justice, and efficiency, and the science of regulating the state, and the knowledge of such things as are naturally good, or bad, or indifferent, and to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong, using a threefold variety of definitions, and rules, and criteria, namely, the love of God, and the love of virtue, and the love of mankind. Accordingly, the sacred scrolls present an infinite number of instances to express one’s devotion to the love of God, and of a continued and uninterrupted purity throughout one’s whole of lifetime, of a careful avoidance of swearing and of lies, and of a strict adherence to the principle of looking up to God as the cause of everything which is good and of nothing which is evil. They also furnish us with many proofs of a love of virtue, such as abstinence from all covetousness of money, from ambition, from indulgence in pleasures, temperance, endurance, and also moderation, simplicity, good temper, the absence of pride, obedience to the laws, steadiness, and everything of that kind; and, lastly, they bring forward as proof of the love of mankind, goodwill, equality beyond all power of description, and fellowship, about which it is not unreasonable to say a few words. In the first place, there is no one who owns a house as private property. Rather, they treat it as belonging to every one: for besides that they all dwell together in companies, the house is open to all those of the same mindset, who come to them from other parts of the country; then there is one storage place among them all; their expenses are all in common; their garments do not belong to each individual but are in common by everyone; all their food is shared equally, since they all eat in the same dining area. There is no other people among which you can find a common use of the same house, a common adoption of one mode of living, and a common use of the same table more thoroughly established in fact than among this tribe: and is not this very natural? For whatever they, after having worked all day, receive their wages, do not retain as their own but place it into a common account, and give any advantage that is to be derived from it to all who desire to avail themselves of it; and those who are sick are not neglected because they are unable to contribute to the common account, inasmuch as the tribe have in their public reserves a means of supplying their necessities and aiding their weakness, so that from their ample means they support them liberally and abundantly; and they cherish respect for their elders, and honor them and care for them, just as parents are honored and cared for by their lawful children: being supported by them in all abundance both by their personal exertions, and by innumerable contrivances.”⁸

We have no Gospel record that John the Baptizer was ever married or that he had any children. Even during the height of his ministry, we find no reference to the fact that his mother and father were there supporting him. Since John the Baptizer and Jesus both lived in the same area of Galilee as boys, and the fact that John’s mother and Jesus’ mother were cousins, they no doubt received a lot of information on how their son John the Baptizer was doing. His lifestyle and manners made him clearly a candidate for the Essene commune, whether he was one or not we do not know.

ATTENTION ALL FAMILY, FRIENDS, FOLLOWERS, AND STUDENTS!

We just finished Chapter 2 of Matthew’s Gospel.  For some, you learned that the visitors from the east who came to see the new king of the Jews were never referred to as kings in scripture, nor does it say there were only three of them.

In fact, earlier versions of Matthew’s writings call them magi, and based on historical texts may even be called Priestly Persian Astrologers.  Also, they might have gotten their clue about this new king from the Jewish Scriptures in the story of Balaam.

Furthermore, various writers from that period tell us what a wicked and ruthless king Herod was, and why his slaughter of the innocent boys in the Bethlehem area fit well with his despicable character.

So what is next in the greatest story ever told?  On Monday we begin Chapter 3, and find out that after the priestly astrologers, the next most important figure in the life of Jesus was one of His relatives by the name of John, who was also known as a very famous baptizer.

See you on Monday, as we go down the unfamiliar road together.

If an atheist tells you they don’t believe there is a God, then ask them if they believe there is no God. If they say “yes”, tell them it is impossible to believe nothing, because belief requires faith, and faith is the evidence of things unseen. Therefore they really are saying they refuse to believe in what they cannot see. But just because you can’t see it, does not mean it doesn’t exist. For instance, love and joy. And if they ask you to prove there is a God, tell them you’ll do so as soon as they prove there isn’t one. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

In my studies of Philosophy, I came across this concept expressed by a Jewish Philosopher back in Medieval times. There are five different theories concerning Divine Providence; they are all ancient, known since the time of the Prophets, when the true Law was revealed to enlighten these dark regions of understanding.

First Theory.— The theory of man’s perfectly free will. According to this principle man does what is in his power to do, by his nature, his choice, and his will; and his action is not due to any faculty created for the purpose. This is the theory of Judaism. All species of irrational animals likewise move by their own free will. This is the Will of God; that is to say, it is due to the eternal divine will that all living beings should move freely, and that man should have power to act according to his will or choice within the limits of his capacity. Another fundamental principle taught by the Law of Moses is this: Wrong cannot be ascribed to God in any way whatever; all evils and afflictions as well as all kinds of happiness of man, whether they concern one individual person or a community, are distributed according to justice; they are the result of strict judgment that admits no wrong whatever. Even when a person suffers pain in consequence of a thorn having entered into his hand, although it is at once drawn out, it is a punishment that has been inflicted on him [for sin], and the least pleasure he enjoys is a reward [for some good action]; all this is meted out by strict justice; as is said in Scripture, “all his ways are judgment” (Deuteronomy 32:4); we are ignorant of how that judgment works. (1393-1273 BC)

Second Theory.— Whilst one part of the Universe owes its existence to Providence, and is under the control of a ruler and governor, another part is abandoned and left to chance. This is the view of Aristotle. (384-322 BC)

Third Theory.— There is no Providence at all for anything in the Universe; all parts of the Universe, the heavens and what they contain, owe their origin to accident and chance; there exists no being that rules and governs them or provides for them. This is the theory of Epicurus. ( Founded in 307 BC)

Fourth Theory.— Man has free will; it is therefore intelligible that the Law contains commands and prohibitions, with announcements of reward and punishment. All acts of God are due to wisdom; no injustice is found in Him, and He does not afflict those who are good. The Mu’tazila Islamic school of theology profess this theory. (8^th Century AD)

Fifth Theory.— This theory is the reverse of the second. According to this theory, there is nothing in the whole Universe, neither a class nor an individual being, that is due to chance; everything is the result of will, intention, and rule. It is a matter of course that he who rules must know [that which is under His control]. The Sunni Muslim school of Ashariyah adheres to this theory. (10^th Century AD)

So the next time you are asked to give an explanation on why the unthinkable happened to someone you think it should have never happened to, which of these explanations would you offer?

NEW TESTAMENT CRITICAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWO

Part V (con’t)

Verses 21-23: “So Joseph took the child and His mother and went to Israel. But he heard that Archelaus was now king in Judea. Archelaus became king when his father Herod the Great died. So Joseph was afraid to go there. Then, after being warned in a dream, he returned to the area of Galilee. He went to the town of Nazareth and lived there. This helped people better understand what God was saying through the prophets. God said the Messiah would be called a Nazarene.”

This is one clue as to the dating of the current calendar, in that Herod Archelaus assumed the throne in 4 BC and lasted until 6 AD. Since he was the one who orchestrated the murder of the innocent in Bethlehem, that would make Jesus six years old, based on the Gregorian calendar. Since Jesus was approximately two when He was taken into Egypt, it’s hard to believe He lived there for four years. In any case, it gives us a clue as to the true age of Jesus. Since it was often normal procedure for any new king to take a census in order to determine his bases for taxation, and it was just such an ordered census that caused Joseph to go to Bethlehem, then our Lord may have been born closer to 4 BC than 1 AD.

This would also mean that instead of our Master being crucified on the cross at age thirty-three, it may have been closer to thirty-seven. But since He is from everlasting to everlasting, that counts for very little. Hearing that Herod Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great, was dead may have brought a sense of relief to Joseph down in Egypt, but finding out that his son Herod Antipas had taken over, did not bring him much joy. Josephus tells us that Archelaus was not much better than his father. But it was not an easy ride for Antipas because a revolt broke out shortly after he took the throne.

Matthew leaves no doubt that Joseph left Egypt and went to Galilee. So returning to Bethlehem in Judea was out of the question. Since we are told in Luke that Joseph and Mary were living in Nazareth when the angel Gabriel visited her, it would seem only natural that this would be Joseph’s choice. No doubt his house was still there as well as his carpentry business. Again, Matthew was a stickler for finding prophecies that pointed out specific aspects of the Messiah’s life and destiny. But there is much speculation as to which prophet Matthew was referring to who, that made any statement which could be construed as pertaining to Jesus being likened to a Nazarene. Some scholars believe that it is a play on words taken from Isaiah where the Hebrew word is ne’tser (branch), from which the word Nazarene comes, is found.¹

Another theory is that it is based on a messianic reference that states: “he grew up before him like a tender shoot.”² The Hebrew word for “shoot” is nasir, more similar to the word nazarene than nazirite. However, a Jewish translator believes that it is simply the wording that is misleading. It should read, “and settled in a town called Natzeret, so that what had been spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he will be called a Natzrati.”³ Therefore, the idea that Jesus would fulfill the vow of a Nazarene was unlikely.⁴

After all, Matthew used the plural “prophets” in identifying the source of the quote. This would allow for taking a little here and a little there and putting it together. It is important to notice that Matthew did not say, “This is what God said,” but rather, “this is what God was saying” through the prophets. In other words, it was not a concrete statement but a general concept that he found throughout the writings of the prophets.

Another theory suggests that being called a “Nazarene” was intended as an insult. In other words, it was a derogatory reference to anyone born or raised in that small hamlet. The word is used precisely that way in the Gospel of John.⁵ With that being said, Jesus was certainly known and referred to often as Jesus of Nazareth. When Joseph arrived in Nazareth of Galilee, Herod Antipas, another of Herod’s sons, was tetrarch or governor. He was a milder person, and not so cruel and tyrannical as his brother Archelaus: besides, Galilee was an obscure place, where, Joseph might reasonably think, he should live with Mary and Jesus unobserved, and free from danger. While Joseph was certainly part of the action that led to them winding up in Nazareth, there is no doubt that it was all orchestrated by God to accomplish what had been foretold by the prophets, of which Matthew quoted Isaiah.⁶

In one Jewish Targum, the verse reads this way: “And a King will come out from the sons of Jesse, and from his children’s children the Messiah will be anointed.”⁷ Another Targum from the Aramaic text renders it: “And the staff merges from the trunk of Isaac,⁸ and the nugget branches out from its root; and there shall rest and settle upon him the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Wisdom and Knowledge, the Spirit of Providence and Greatness, the Spirit of Understanding and Submission to YaHWeH.⁹”¹⁰ Another rendering reads: “Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit.”¹¹ In Jonathan ben Uzziel’s Targum it reads: “And a King will rise from the sons of Jesse, and from his children’s children the Messiah shall be anointed.¹² So there was no doubt in the Jewish scholar’s mind that this prophecy pertained to the coming Messiah.

As far as Matthew was concerned, this prophecy was now fulfilled in Yeshua; since He was descended from Jesse’s family. Furthermore, by Him living in Nazareth, he would appear to be, and would be “called a Nazarene, or Netzer, the branch”; being an inhabitant of Natzareth, or Netzer, so called from the multitude of plants and trees that grew there. To better understand the term “Nazarene,” we turn to a Rabbi from a celebrated family which traced their origin to those Jews who were led into captivity after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and Vespasian. He received his first instruction from his father, who was a very eminent and literary man, and who initiated him in all the cycle of Biblical and Talmudic lore. He offers the etymology and definition of Nazareth. This book is hard to find, so I’ve included his whole article at the end of this chapter.

Also, we find an interesting dialogue between two rabbis that apply “Nazareth” to Jesus. This was not lost on the Jewish Rabbis at the time. In their Talmud we have a narration that gives us some insight. It seems that Rabbi Eliezer was arrested because he was under suspicion of having converted to Christianity. It was at a time in the year 109 AD when Trajan was emperor, and another Rabbi named Eliezer ben Hyrcanus had also been arrested under suspicion of becoming a follower of Yeshua. When he appeared before the tribunal, the judge said to him, “How can a wise man like you occupy himself with those meaningless tales?’ He replied, ‘I acknowledge the Judge as right.’ The governor thought that he referred to him — though he really referred to his Father in Heaven — and said, ‘Because you have acknowledged that I am right, I pardon you; you are acquitted.’ When he came home, his disciples visited him to console him, but he would accept no consolation.”¹³ His disciples believed this was due to the fact that he was grieved over being suspected of apostasy. Then one Rabbi said to him, “Master, will you permit me to say one thing of what you have taught me?” He replied, “Say it.” “Master,” said he, “perhaps some of the teaching of this deceiver that has been transmitted to you and you approved of it and because of that you were arrested?” He exclaimed: “You have reminded me.” I was once walking in the upper-market of Sepphoris when I came across one of the disciples of Yeshua the Nazarene, his name was Jacob of Kefar-Sekanaiah [Scholars believe this was James the son of Alphaeus,¹⁴ or James the Little,¹⁵ who said to me: It is written in your Torah, You will not hire and bring a harlot . . . into the house of the Lord your God.¹⁶ Can such money be applied to building a place of rest for the High Priest? [Who spent the whole night preceding the Day of Atonement in the precincts of the Temple, where due provision had to provide for all his conveniences]. To which I made no reply. Said he to me: That is what I was taught by Yeshua the Nazarene. For of the hire of a harlot she has gathered them and to the hire of a harlot they will return. They came from a place of filth, let them go to a place of filth. Those words pleased me very much, and that is why I was arrested for apostasy; in so doing I transgressed the scripture that says: Distance yourself far from her – which refers to the deceiver – and do not come near to the door of her house, – which refers to the ruling power.”¹⁷

Whether or not this quote is actually from Jesus, or it is a paraphrase of what this disciple heard, it does provide evidence that the Rabbis in Galilee knew of Him and His followers. Also, the key to understanding this saying is in the last line, where it mentions that the term “harlot” is a metaphor for the Jewish Sanhedrin and leading priests and Rabbis. Also, often when Jewish Rabbis wrote their opinions that were then included in the Talmuds, they often used code words so that only those with inside information could understand who they were referring to. In the Talmud we read this paragraph: “There is no separating: that means, may our group not be like that of David from which resulted in the rise of Ahithophel. And no separation: that means, may our group not be like that of Saul from which Doeg the Edomite rose to prominence. And no outcry: may our group not be like that of Elisha, from which Gehazi disconnected. Where our membership is the highest: may we produce no son or pupil who disgraces himself in public.”¹⁸ Here is the key to understanding this. Ahithophel became a byword for someone who causes a division among the supporters of the King. And when someone was referred to as a Doeg, it meant they were up to no good. Of course Gehazi became an outcast as a leper and was supposed to cry “unclean, unclean” to anyone who approached him. Likewise, the son or pupil who disgraces himself was a metaphor for someone who accepted heretical teachings, and should identify themselves as such. And finally, “in public” meant such a person should not be recognized as a valid member belonging to the Rabbi or priestly class, making a public spectacle of themselves. We are told that in the Munich Codex of one Talmud it reads: “like the Nazarene.” This of course could only mean Yeshua of Nazareth.

Also, a well-known traveler during the Middle Ages made this note about a visit to Rome: “Rome is about twenty-four miles in circumference. In the middle there are eighty palaces belonging to eighty kings who lived there, each called Emperor, commencing with King Tarquinius down to Nero and Tiberius, who lived at the time of Yeshua the Nazarene, ending with Pepin, who freed the people of Sepharad¹⁹ from Islam, and was the father of Charlemagne.”²⁰ For all the parsing of words and twisting of meanings done by the Jews to discredit Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, a Dutch Christian scholar of Hebrew, stated that these Jewish scholars used their own fill-in-the-blanks, when they assert that the words of Moses, and the prophets, should not be taken verbatim, but by what they meant to say. Unfortunately, we find some Christian scholars are doing the same thing today with the words of Christ.²¹ Here is the article on Nazareth I mentioned earlier:

NAZARETH, a town of Galilee, about an hour’s walk to the southeast from Sepphoris, chiefly celebrated as the residence of our Lord’s parents, and the home of his youth.²² It is a singular fact that the first mention of this town is in connection with the advent of the Messiah. The name occurs nowhere in the O.T., nor in documents before the birth of Christ, nor is it found used by any classic author. The name Nazareth demands the attention of the Biblical scholar on account of the statement of the evangelist Matthew, ‘And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.’²³ This passage is confessedly difficult, and has formed the basis of determined attacks upon the inspiration of Scripture from the earliest ages. Various interpretations have been given. The words here cited are not found in any part of the sacred Scriptures. Some say that by the ‘prophets’ are meant, not the authors of the O.T., but a lower grade of prophetic interpreters, who deduced this meaning from their words. Others affirm that Matthew refers to some traditional saying, and not to any written text. Others, again, state that some portions of the canonical Scriptures have perished, and this passage among them. These explanations will not satisfy the critical scholar. The phrase used here and else where in the gospels, as a proper name, to denote one of the three great sections into which the Jews divided the O.T.;²⁴ but the very generality of the reference is enough to show that this is no citation from any one of the sacred writers, but a summary of the symbolic or spiritual meaning of several. It ought to be remembered that the allusions to the Messiah in the O.T. are of three kinds, directly prophetical, typical, and symbolical. We are justified, therefore, as Bishop Ellicott says, in assigning to the word Messiah all the meanings legitimately belonging to it, by derivation or otherwise, which are concurrent with the declarations of the prophets in reference to our Lord. We may therefore trace this prophetic declaration, (a) principally and primarily, in all the passages which refer to the Messiah under the title of the Branch (Netser), of the root of Jesse;²⁵ (b) in the references to the circumstances of lowliness and obscurity under which that growth was to take place;²⁶ and perhaps further (c) in the prophetic notices of a contempt and rejection such as seems to have been the common and, as it would seem in many respects, deserved portion of the inhabitant of rude and ill-reputed Nazareth. The whole history of Nazareth clusters round one event, known throughout the Christian world as the “Annunciation.” Before that event its name was unknown ; but since, it has become a household word throughout Christendom, linked in holy alliance with Bethlehem and Jerusalem. From this event comes all its traditional glory. Splendid structures have been built to commemorate it. Thousands of pilgrimages have been made in honor of it. But to the thoughtful Christian, Nazareth – the home of Christ’s boyhood, the scene of his domestic relations, his private life, his mental development, his prayers and communion with the Father, his early labors – possesses a far greater charm, a far more intense interest, than the miraculous event of the Annunciation could ever of itself have conferred. Yet there is little said about Nazareth in the gospels ; and the references to its site and features are only incidental. They are worthy of note, however. ‘The angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin . . . and the virgin’s name was Mary.’²⁷ From Galilee, out of Nazareth,’ Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to be taxed.²⁸ After the return of the holy family from Egypt, they returned into Galilee, to their own city²⁹ Nazareth.’ After the visit to the temple at the age of twelve, Jesus went down with his parents to Nazareth, and was subject unto them.’³⁰ When entering on his public life, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.’³¹ Nazareth was now no longer his home. Yet he returned to it. He came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up.’³² The reception he encountered, clearly shows the general character of the Nazarenes, and that there was some foundation for Nathanael’s question, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?’ His fellow-townsmen not only rejected him, they sought to murder him; then he left Nazareth, and took up his residence in Capernaum, which was henceforth called his own city.’³³ Again he visited his native town, and taught in the synagogue with such clearness and power that all were astonished. Still they said in derision, Is not this the carpenter’s son? . . . how then, can this man be all these things? And they were offended by him.’³⁴ We hear no more of Nazareth in sacred history, and its traditional history is not worth recording. It attracted no notice till the establishment of Christianity in the time of Constantine; nor does it seem to have been visited by a single pilgrim till about the 6th century. In the 7th century it contained two churches—one built over the fountain; the other over the house of Mary, now occupied by the Latin convent. During the Crusades, its great church was rebuilt and richly endowed, and the town was made the seat of a bishop.³⁵

As far as the text of Matthew’s Gospel is concerned, Jesus and His parents are now in the village where He will grow up as He prepares Himself for the ministry to come. Some have often wondered why the Gospel writers did not spend more time sharing His childhood with us. Perhaps we are curious as to what Jesus was like as a boy. Did Joseph teach him the skills of a carpenter? Did our Lord play with the other children, and what was His behavior. Some have tried like the Russian doctor Nicolas Notovitch, a Crimean Jewish adventurer and journalist, who in 1894 claiming that during the years of Jesus between 12 and 30, our Lord went to India and studied with Buddhists and Hindus before returning to Judea to start his ministry..³⁶

This reminds me of a story told about Aeneas Sylvius, afterwards Pope Pius the Second (1458-64), when on a visit to England, was anxious to see with his own eyes something called “barnacle geese” that were reported to grow on trees, and, since they were thought to be vegetable rather than animal, were allowed to be eaten during Lent. He traveled as far as Scotland to see them, but when arrived there he was told that he must go further, to a place called the Orchades near Kirkwall, if he wished to see these miraculous geese. He seemed rather upset by this, and, complaining that miracles always seem to lie beyond reach, he gave up chasing the barnacle geese. This is where we get our famous line, “a wild goose chase.” Such has been the effort to recover the lost years of Jesus.

We must understand that those who wrote about the life of Jesus were not writing a novel, nor were they keeping a diary. They were sharing the story of the Messiah and focused on what He came to do in order to fulfill the prophecies made about Him. Furthermore, since most of their writings came 30 to 40 years after our Lord ascended, the Holy Spirit inspired them to remember only the critical parts of the story in order to establish a firm foundation for the Gospel that was to be preached into all the world.

NEW TESTAMENT CRITICAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWO

Part V

Verses 17-18: “This helped people better understand what God was saying through the prophet Jeremiah: ‘A sound was heard in Ramah—bitter crying and great sadness. Rachel cries for her children, and she cannot be comforted, because her children are gone.’”

Here Matthew picks up on Jeremiah’s words: “This is what the Lord says: ‘A sound is heard in Ramah – bitter crying and great sadness. Rachel cries for her children, and she refuses to be comforted, because her children are gone.’”¹ Matthew does not say that this was written about these innocent boys being murdered as a result of King Herod’s rage. Jeremiah was speaking about so many Israelites being lost to foreign armies. However, Rachel’s mourning over them could not have been any worse than the wailing now heard over all these murdered boys. As believers, we can also see some similarities in the life of Jesus. His first coming fulfilled prophecy and brought joy and singing; His departure brought the fulfillment of prophecy but weeping and wailing was heard. His second coming to resurrect those who died in the faith and transform those who are living will be a repeat of the sounds of joy, while His immediate departure with the saints will bring on wailing and sadness. Dr. Lightfoot feels strongly that clarification is needed here to clear up some misunderstanding of the location of Ramah. This we find in early church father writings: “Therefore, on account of the voice which would be heard from Rama, i.e., from Arabia (for there is in Arabia at this very time a place called Ramah), wailing would come from the place where Rachel the wife of Jacob called Israel, the holy patriarch, has been buried, i.e., near Bethlehem; while the women weep for their own slaughtered children, and have no consolation by reason of what has happened to them.”² Dr. Lightfoot’s clarification on “Ramah” and how it applies to what happened to the innocents in Bethlehem:

“In Ramah was there a voice heard, lamentation and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are no more. The prophecy referred to is in Jeremiah,³ which, upon examination, will appear to be a literal prophecy relating to this fact, and this only; for it cannot be understood about the Babylonian captivity, and of the mourning of the Jewish women upon that account, is evident, if these be considered: 1) That in such a general calamity the mourning is general, as undoubtedly that was, and not confined to mothers only, as this is. 2) That there is no reason to believe that the mourning for the captivity was confined to a particular place, much less that Ramah should be that place, since there is no manner of evidence that the captives were gathered together there, and deplored their miserable condition. Besides, 3) The cause of this mourning is not captivity,but death; Rachel is introduced weeping for her children, not because they were carried captive, but because they are no more; which is a phrase by which death is frequently expressed,⁴ but everything well agrees with the slaughter of the infants at Bethlehem,and there are several things in the context, as well as in the text, which serve to confirm this sense. First: The preceding verses manifestly speak of the blessings of the Messiah’s kingdom, and of the joy and comfort which his people should partake of; but lest any should imagine that that dispensation should be entirely free from the usual sorrows, distresses, and afflictions of life, it is declared, that the people of God would at some times, not only be met with distress in their own consciences for sin, and the chastisements of God upon them for the same reason, as in verses 18, 19, but also with bitter persecutions from the world, and that, even almost as soon as the Messiah was born, Satan would begin to exert his rage, and the most tragic and barbarous action be committed, that ever was heard of, which is expressed in the prophecy under consideration. Secondly: The tender and sorrowful mothers mourning over their slaughtered infants, in and about Bethlehem, may very well be represented by Rachel; not only because Bethlehem was the place of her sepulcher,⁵ but because of her eager desire and overmuch fondness of having children,⁶ and therefore a very fit person to represent tender and affectionate mothers bewailing the death of their children; and though Bethlehem was in the tribe of Judah, where Leah’s, and not Rachel’s children lived, yet Ramah was in the tribe of Benjamin, who was Rachel’s child; which two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, bordering on each other, the prophecy well agrees with the evangelist’s account of this matter; for though Bethlehem of Judah was the principal seat of this tragic action, yet it was not confined there, but was extended to all the coasts thereof; so that the voice of lamentation was heard in Ramah of Benjamin: Thus the objection of the Jews against the citation of this prophecy in Matthew, and its application to Jesus, is made void.”⁷

In Matthew’s mind, what Jeremiah’s reference to God’s children having been scattered and lost among the nations was a time for grief among the Jews. And that those who passed by Rachel’s grave might hear her crying for them much like she cried for her own. But they were to be comforted because He would bring them back. This weeping and grieving over those who were lost, Matthew likened to the weeping and grieving taking place in Bethlehem after the merciless murder of these sons who would never come back.

Verses 19-20: “While Joseph was in Egypt, Herod died. An angel from the Lord came to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Get up! Take the child with his mother and go to Israel. Those who were trying to kill the child are now dead.’”

Here Matthew picks up the story of Joseph and Mary in Egypt. By now, Joseph must have been use to an angel giving him advice and direction. So there would be little hesitation for him to obey. It must be noted, that the angel did not tell Joseph to go back to Bethlehem, or even Judea. Rather, he was to return to Israel. This was the northern part of the country where the city of Nazareth was located. We have no record that Jesus ever visited Bethlehem again. For the rest of His life He would be tied to Nazareth, even while living in Capernaum. Jewish historian Josephus reminds us again that king Herod died while visiting Jericho. After his mass infanticide following the magi’s departure, there is no reason to have pity for him. Josephus says, “But now Herod’s distemper greatly increased upon him after a severe manner, and this by God’s judgment upon him for his sins; for a fire glowed in him slowly, which did not so much appear to the touch outwardly, as it augmented his pains inwardly; for it brought upon him a vehement appetite to eating, which he could not avoid to supply with one sort of food or other. His entrails were also ex-ulcerated, and the chief violence of his pain lay on his colon; an aqueous and transparent liquor also had settled itself about his feet, and a like matter afflicted him at the bottom of his belly”.⁸ According to historical records, Archelaus succeeded his father Herod the Great in 4 BC, and reigned until 6 AD according to the Christian calendar. These dates have given some Bible historians the notion that when the current calendar was formulated, the original date tied to Jesus’ birth was off as many as 4 to 6 years. In any case, when we look at the Jewish Scroll of Fasts, which was composed very early in the first century AD, we find a list of memorable days in Jewish history, which were kept as special days in the calendar, when fasting was not permitted. Most of the entries refer to events which happened between the second century BC and the first century AD. They are arranged in twelve sections, according to the Jewish month in which they occurred. The list was written in Aramaic, and it was later greatly amplified by a Hebrew commentary written in about the 7th century AD. On the 7^th day of the ninth month, Kislev, (our November) there is a holiday. According to the Jewish Teachers, this day commemorates the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC. This has led some Christian scholars to adjust the Christian calendar to recognize that Jesus was born anywhere from 6 to 4 BC. We do not know how long, but sometime after Herod’s horrible yet deserving death, an angel appeared to Joseph down in Egypt in a dream. Some scholars believe it was the same angel who told Joseph to go down into Egypt in the first place. This means that Joseph was not be afraid of this angel and be willing to accept his message. We do not know how long Joseph waited after Herod died to return to Nazareth. But one thing for sure, it was not without concern because he may not have known who took over from Herod as king. As it would turn out, King Herod Agrippa would take the throne, and Jesus would meet him later toward the end of His life.

NEW TESTAMENT CRITICAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWO

Part IV (con’t) 09/23/15

In the mean time, we find Joseph, Mary and Jesus in Egypt. According to Dr. John Lightfoot: “…provision was made for the poverty of Joseph and Mary, while they sojourned in Egypt (at Alexandria, probably), partly by selling the presents of the wise men for food and provision by the way; and partly by a supply of victuals from their country-folks in Egypt when they had need.”¹ Dr. Lightfoot also suggests that Jesus and His parents were in Egypt no more than three to four months. This was to fulfill what is said in Hosea: “The Lord said, ‘I loved Israel when he was a child, and I called my Son out of Egypt.”² To this Dr. Lightfoot adds the following commentary:

“Now though it may be granted, that Israel was a type of the Messiah, and is therefore one of the names by which he is called in the Old Testament, particularly in, Isaiah,³ and that there is a very great resemblance between Israel’s going down into, and coming out of Egypt, and that of Christ’s, as also, that the deliverance of the people of Israel out of Egypt might he used proverbially to express any remarkable deliverance from imminent danger, yet I apprehend that the words are to be understood of the Messiah in their first, literal, proper, and obvious sense, and of him only; and so the evangelist Matthew must be supposed to understand them, whose manifest design is to produce direct proofs of Jesus’ Messiahship, out of the Old Testament, which mere allusions, types, allegories, and accommodations of phrases cannot be allowed to be. Now, in order to fix the literal sense of these words, as applicable to the Messiah, let it be observed, that the scope and design of the preceding chapters is to set before the people of Israel their many provoking sins and transgressions, in order to bring them to an acknowledgment of, and repentance for them; and to declare, that upon their non-repentance, divine judgments would be executed upon them, to the utter ruin of their kingdom and nation, which account is continued to the end of the tenth chapter: but God being rich in mercy, in wrath remembers mercy, and for the sake of his own people, which were among them, mitigates this sentence, and in the eleventh chapter declares the yearnings of his heart towards them, and his very great affection for them, not withstanding all their ingratitude to him; the true causes of which kindness of his, are laid together in this first verse, which may stand connected with the latter part of the last verse of the preceding chapter; in a morning shall the king of Israel be utterly cut off,the true reason of which is because Israel is a child, that is, a rebellious and disobedient one, therefore he shall be many days without a king and without a prince; nevertheless I love him; and have therefore determined to call my son out of Egypt, who will be obliged to retire there for some time, and will set him upon the throne of his father David, who shall reign and prosper and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth or else the words may he considered, as giving the reason of God’s merciful dealing with the people of Israel, notwithstanding all their rebellions against him, and the many provocations he had received from them, because Israel is a child,that is, weak, helpless, and cannot govern himself; foolish, ignorant, imprudent, and needs instruction; and I love him, therefore I have determined to call, or I will call, the past tense for the future, which is common in the Hebrew language, especially in the prophetic writings, my son out of Egypt, who, through Herod’s rage and malice, will be obliged to abide there for a while, yet I will bring him from thence into the land of .Judea,where he shall be brought up, and shall help my child, Israel, shall instruct him in the precepts of the law, and in the doctrines of the gospel, and at last, by suffering death, shall procure the pardon of all his transgressions; for notwithstanding all his ingratitude towards me, of which a particular account is given in verses 2-7, yet I cannot but have a regard for him, and show compassion to him, and therefore he says in verse 8, How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together. Now this appears to be the natural and unconstrained sense of these words, which sufficiently justifies the evangelist Matthew in his citation of them, on the occasion of Jesus’ going into Egypt and his return from thence; they being a literal prophecy of the Messiah, which had its exact fulfillment in Jesus.”⁴

In my commentary under verses 18-22 below, I share the various methods that Jewish scholars used to interpret scripture. One of them is Remez, which means: “a hint” — wherein a word, phrase or other element in the text hints at a truth not conveyed by the literal sense of the text. The implied presupposition is that God can hint at things of which the Bible writers themselves were unaware. I agree with those who believe that Matthew was using this method of interpretation of what the prophet Hosea actually said without being aware of it.⁵ That’s why its important that we notice how Matthew put it, “This is what the Lord meant when He spoke through the prophet.”

Verse 16: “Herod saw that the Magi had fooled him, and he was very angry. So he gave an order to kill all the baby boys in Bethlehem and the whole area around Bethlehem. Herod had learned from the Magi the time the baby was born. It was now two years from that time. So he said to kill all the boys who were two years old and younger.”

Herod’s arithmetic gives us a solid clue as to the length of the Magi’s journey and the age of Jesus. We see that Matthew failed to mention the purification of Mary, which takes 40 days,⁶ nor did he include Jesus’ dedication which is supposed to follow immediately after eight days. Luke does, but only after the ceremony and then skips their flight into Egypt and has them returning to Nazareth not Bethlehem where the Magi found Jesus. The shepherds found Him in a manager; the Magi found Him in a house. Some have mistakenly calculated that the Magi found Jesus sometime between birth and dedication, which was approximately forty days. However, this seems most unlikely. We see that between the dedication and return to Nazareth recorded by Luke, there is a break allowing for the Magi’s visit and then their return flight home. As we have seen, Magi also means “astrologer” and there were many such living in Persia. The distance is approximately 900 to 1,000 miles from Jerusalem. A seasoned traveler can trek this distance easily in six months, even though they traveled by night in order to follow the star. Therefore Jesus, had to be at least between eighteen months to 24 months of age at the time of their visit.

But the big story was how the Magi fooled Herod. This set him off on a vicious campaign to somehow by the luck of the draw be able to catch his so-called new King of the Jews and get rid of him without delay. Dr. John Lightfoot points out that the reason of the tarrying of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem was this: “…that they believed that the Messiah, who, according to the prophet was born there, should have been brought up nowhere but there also; nor dared they to carry him elsewhere, before they had leave to do so by an angel from heaven.”⁷ This would certainly account for why they had not returned to Nazareth, but stayed with Joseph’s family in Bethlehem. We have already documented what a troubled and immoral man Herod was, even at the beginning of his reign. Some doubting scholars indicate that this slaying of the innocent males was a myth because there is no record of it in Josephus or any other writings of that era. Matthew is quite clear, that the killings took place “only in Bethlehem.” Therefore, we do not know the population of Bethlehem at that time nor how many 2 year old boys were there. But in order for it to become part of secular history, it would have to either be a massacre large enough to get their attention, or in the journal of someone who lived there. Rabbi David Solomon Gans, the Jewish chronicler in his edition on Jewish History, calls Herod: “a bloody and deceitful man” who was capable of such a heinous act. Although most scholars, secular and religious, do not see any hint in Jewish historian Josephus’ writings concerning the killing of these infants, we do see a tendency and trend on Herod’s part that may clearly have involved such action.

Josephus writes about the Pharisees and their opposition to Herod: “They foretold how God decreed that Herod’s government come to an end, and none of his sons would ever sit on the throne…These predictions were not concealed from Salome, but were told to the king; as also how they had perverted some persons about the palace itself; so the king slew such of the Pharisees as were principally accused, and Bagoas the eunuch, and one Carus, who exceeded all men of that time in comeliness, and one that was his catamite.⁸ He slew also all those of his own family who had consented to what the Pharisees foretold; and for Bagoas, he had been puffed up by them, as though he should be named the father and the benefactor of him who, by the prediction, was foretold to be their appointed king; for that this king would have all things in his power.”⁹ But even further information can be found in the insights of a Roman grammarian and philosopher who lived in the fifth century AD. We know next to nothing about him, but his works have been incredibly influential in Western thought given that they were some of the most commonly read and cited works by medieval Christian philosophers given their clear and well-presented arguments in favor of neo-Platonism. However one of the things this philosopher is well-known for is being the original source for a particularly cruel anti-Jewish joke that was attributed by him to the Emperor Augustus, which goes as follows: “When Augustus heard that among the boys under two years old in Syria whom Herod the King of the Jews had ordered to be killed, his own son had also been slain, he said, ‘It is better to be Herod’s pig than his son‘.”¹⁰ This suggests that Augustus was appalled at what Herod had done and in order to express his distaste he points out; via implication in the humor, that Herod is a vicious and immoral Jewish tyrant willing to murder even his own son in order to maintain his power. But even more, it shows that the story of the murder of the innocents in Bethlehem was not a well-kept secret, and was known even among Gentile authors. With so much evidence from both sacred and secular resources, it is almost an act of pure denial for anyone to dismiss this part of the story of Jesus as mere myth or made up anecdotes by His followers.

Early Church Father Eusebius, also chronicles what happened later on to Herod and gives additional details in this account:

“The disease then seized his whole body and he was overcome by various torments. For he had a low fever, and the itching of the skin over his whole body was unstoppable. He suffered also from continuous pains in his colon, and there were swellings in his feet like those of a person suffering from dropsy, while his abdomen was inflamed and his privy member so putrefied as to produce worms. Besides this he could only breathe by sitting in an upright position, and then with difficulty, and he had involuntary shaking of all his limbs, so that the astrologers said that his diseases were a punishment. But he, although wrestling with such sufferings, nevertheless clung to life and hoped for recovery, and devised methods of cure. For instance, crossing over the Jordan River he used the warm baths at Callirhoe, which flow into Lake Asphaltites, but are themselves safe enough to drink. His physicians here thought that they could warm his whole body again by means of heated oil. But when they let him down into a tub filled with oil, his eyes became weak and turned up like the eyes of a dead person. But when his attendants raised an outcry, he recovered at the noise, but finally, despairing of a cure, he commanded about 50 drachmas to be distributed among the soldiers, and great sums to be given to his generals and friends. Then he returned to Jericho, where, being seized with grief, he planned to commit an godless deed, as if challenging death itself. After collecting from every town the most talented men of all Judea, he commanded that they be shut up in the so-called hippodrome. And having summoned Salome, his sister and her husband, Alexander, he said: ‘I know that the Jews will rejoice at my death. However, others may have pity on me and give me a splendid funeral if you are willing to perform my commands. As soon as I expire, surround these men who are now under guard, as quickly as possible with soldiers, and kill them, in order that all Judea and every house may weep over me even against their will.’ And again he was so tortured by want of food and by a convulsive cough that, overcome by his pains, he planned to decide his fate. Taking an apple he asked also for a knife, for he was accustomed to cutting apples and eating them. Then looking around to see that there was no one to hinder, he raised his right hand as if to stab himself. In addition to these things, he murdered another of is own sons before his death, the third one killed by his command, and that shortly thereafter he breathed his last, but not without excessive pain.¹¹

What a horrible end to a miserable life and wretched man. But the greatest loss was the grace of God to which he had access to but did not reach for. Now, after studying ancient accounts of Herod’s death, Dr. Jan Hirschmann, a physician at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, thinks the king probably died of chronic kidney disease, complicated by a particularly nasty case of gangrene. Other physicians also believe he may have been suffering from a case of tertiary syphilis.

NEW TESTAMENT CRITICAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWO

Part IV

Verses 12-14: “But God warned the Magi in a dream not to go back to King Herod. So they went back to their own country by a different route. After the Magi left, an angel from the Lord came to Joseph in a dream. The angel said, ‘Get up! Take the child with His mother and escape to Egypt. Herod wants to kill the child and will soon start looking for Him. Stay in Egypt until I tell you to come back.’ So Joseph got ready and left for Egypt with the child and the mother. They left during the night.” While it may be thought that the Magi set out on their journey inspired by their love for astrology and star gazing, there is much to be said as to their purpose. They were looking for a new born king. They were led to Jerusalem. Then they were led to the house where Joseph, Mary and Jesus were staying. Was all of this sheer luck or good astronomy? If God now warned them in a dream to leave and not tell Herod anything about where they found the boy, could it not be that God in His own infinite way sparked their interest in learning what this new star in the sky really meant? Furthermore, here we see God’s omniscience with regards to Herod’s ensuing action of murdering the infant boys. How true that God knows men’s thoughts before they are expressed. There is something very interesting here in the way that the angel in verses 13 & 20 specifies directions so clearly. The writer is explicit in his narration when he reiterates that Joseph took “the child and His mother.” Even though they were ceremonially man and wife, the scripture clearly indicates that this product of Mary’s womb was not the result of the usual intimate relationship between his mother and her husband. Joseph is referred to here in a way that shows a “parental relationship,” not a “biological relationship,” and therefore was merely an accomplice to the greatest story ever told. It also signifies that God did not motivate Joseph to ask Mary to wed him simply out of love or because he wanted a wife to bear him children, but God was choosing a good caretaker of this remarkable girl and her supernatural son. For some reason we are not told into what part of Egypt Joseph took Mary and Jesus. This was a traditional place of refuge, as we can see in various Scriptures.¹ Some say they went to Alexandria because there was a large Jewish community there at the time. In one Jewish document the Rabbis were discussing about when a writ of divorce is made out, how in some cases an inscription is made on leather in the form of writing, and how if it is done on the Sabbath the writ is then void. In an unusual remark, one Rabbi stated: “Now did not Ben Stada – [Jesus] learn and bring magic to make marks on leather in the form of writing in the same way?”² Two hundred years later Jewish writers make this same point, only they say, “It was taught: ‘But did not Ben Stada [Jesus] bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches in the form of charms on His flesh? He was a fool, answered they, and proof cannot be adduced from fools.”³ Although it is unclear as to just what types of marks or scratches on Jesus’ skin they were referring to, there is always the possibility that this was their way of trying to debunk the testimony of the disciples, who said that they saw the risen Christ and knew it was Him because of the nail prints in His hands and the scar in His side. But it does verify that the Jews were aware of the time Jesus spent in Egypt as a child, which fits Matthew’s account. In light of this, there is an interesting story in Jewish tradition about Gehazi, Elisha’s servant who was stricken with leprosy because of his disobedience by accepting gifts from the Syrian General Naaman after he was healed in the Jordan River. After hearing this story, someone in the group asked: “What happened to Rabbi Joshua ben Perahjah?” They were told: “When King Jannai slew our Rabbis, Rabbi Joshua ben Perahjah (and Jesus) fled to Alexandria, Egypt . . . And a great teacher has said, ‘Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and let Israel astray’.”⁴ The problem with this story is that it makes Jesus a contemporary with King Jannai (104-78 BC). Very few scholars have accepted this as having any credibility, therefore that is why it was scrubbed from later copies of the Talmud. Nevertheless, it does show us that Jesus being down in Egypt was a subject in Jewish discussions. Then in a polemic document the writer gives his opinion on Jesus being taken down into Egypt: “What was the reason for this? If he were God, why should he have been afraid of the king? Why, we see that God’s angels and servants were not afraid of flesh and blood; they carried out their divine mission openly, and no man had the power to touch them or harm them at all.”⁵ What this anonymous writer of the polemic did not take into account was that Jesus was here to fulfill all scriptures written about the Messiah so that His claim to be the Messiah would be clearly authenticated. Joseph and Mary were not so much afraid of Herod as they were respectful of the angel’s message from God. But a Christian apologists had an answer for such speculation:

“My opponent will perhaps meet me with many other slanderous and childish charges which are being spread everywhere. That Jesus was a Magician; he effected all these things by secret arts. From the shrines of the Egyptians he stole the names of angels of might, and the religious system of a remote country. Why, O you of little wisdom, do you speak of things which you have not examined, and which are unknown to you, running your mouth with the babble of a rash tongue ? Were, then, those things which were done, the freaks of demons, and the tricks of magical arts? Can you specify and point out to me any one of all those magicians who have ever existed in the past ages, that did anything similar, in the thousandth degree, to Christ? Who has done this without any power of incantations, without the juice of herbs and of grasses, without any anxious watching of sacrifices, of libations, or of seasons? And yet we all agree that Christ performed all those miracles which He wrought without any aid from external things, without the observance of any ceremonial, without any specific procedure, but solely by the inherent might of His authority; and as was the proper duty of a true God, as was consistent with His nature, as was worthy of Him, in the generosity of his bounteous power he bestowed nothing hurtful or injurious, but only that which is helpful, beneficial, and full of blessings good for mankind.”⁶

I’m sure to all of what our brother said here we can shout a loud “Amen!” We may not be as loquacious or witty as this writer, but the point is the same. Why do we cringe when we are confronted and challenged by those who do not believe in God, the Bible, Creation, Miracles, the Resurrection, etc? Remember, as this writer said, it is incumbent upon them to prove they are right just as much as they ask us to prove we are right.

Verse 15: “Joseph stayed in Egypt until Herod died. This helped people to better understand what the Lord meant when He said through the prophet: ‘I called my son to come out of Egypt.’” Jesus could have been as old as 18 to 24 months when the Magi came, and Joseph and Mary stayed in Egypt several years, by the time they got to Nazareth, Jesus may have been as old as 5 years of age. The prophet mentioned here by Matthew was Hosea, who said: “The Lord said, ‘I loved Israel when he was a child, and I called my son out of Egypt.‘”⁷ Another Rabbi sees this verse differently, and renders it: “When Israel was a child in Egypt, then in My love for him, I used to cry out whenever I saw him, O My son.”⁸ A more recent Jewish translation puts it this way: “When Isra’el was a child, I loved him; and out of Egypt I called my son.”⁹ This conforms very much to the Aramaic text of this verse. There is no reason not to believe that Matthew was convinced that this statement involved Jacob going down into Egypt during the famine and stayed there with Joseph until he died. Then the children of Israel remained in Egypt some 450 years before God called out Jacob’s children, out of the love he had for him since he was a child. But Matthew saw that this word from God about Israel, in fact contained a subliminal message about His Son the Messiah. Regardless of what happened to Joseph, Mary and Jesus in Egypt, Herod paid for his treachery and attempt to end the Savior’s life before His ministry could be realized. Luke is the first one to tell us the following story: “Later, Herod moved from Judea. He went to the city of Caesarea and stayed there a while. Herod was very angry with the people from the cities of Tyre and Sidon. But these cities needed food from his country, so a group of them came to ask him for peace. They were able to get Blastus, the king’s personal servant, on their side. Herod decided on a day to meet with them. On that day he was wearing a beautiful royal robe. He sat on his throne and made a speech to the people. The people shouted, ‘This is the voice of a god, not a man!’ Herod did not give the glory to God. So an angel of the Lord caused him to get sick. He was eaten by worms inside him, and he died.”¹⁰ A venerable Jewish historian gives us an even more detailed story:

“Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Caesarea, which was formerly called Strato’s Tower; and there he exhibited shows in honor of Caesar, upon his being informed that there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety. At which festival a great multitude was gotten together of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity through his province. On the second day of which shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a design truly wonderful, and came into the theater early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, (though not for his good,) that he was a god; and they added, ‘Be thou merciful to us; for although we have up until now only reverenced you as a man, yet we will from now on accept you as superior to mortal nature.’ Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. But as he shortly thereafter looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and he fell into the deep depression. A severe pain began to form in his belly in a most violent manner. He therefore looked at his friends, and said, ‘I, whom you call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life; while Providence thus reproves the lying words you just now said to me; and I, who was by you called immortal, am immediately to be hurried away by death. But I am bound to accept of what Providence allots, as it pleases God; for we have by no means lived ill, but in a splendid and happy manner.’ When he said this, his pain became violent. Accordingly, he was carried into the palace, and the rumor went abroad every where, that he would certainly die in a short time. But the multitude presently sat in sackcloth, with their wives and children, according to the law of their country, and besought God for the king’s recovery. All places were also full of mourning and lamentation. Now the king rested in a high chamber, and as he saw them below lying prostrate on the ground, he could not himself keep from weeping. And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life, being in the fifty-fourth year of his age.”¹¹

While Herod certainly got what was coming to him for his murder of the innocents, we cannot help be feel a sense of sorry that he died in such a horrible manner. More than this being a curse from God, Herod brought it on himself. Such is often the case in this world with those who refuse to recognize God the Father and His Son Jesus the Savior of the world. We should never be heard saying: “Good for that sinner. I’m glad he or she died, they deserved it.” Rather, we should say in the words contributed to the British parson John Bradford (1510-1555 AD), who while watching a group of prisoners being let to their execution remarked to those standing in the crowd with him: “There but for the grace of God go I.”

NEW TESTAMENT CRITICAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWO

Part III (con’t)

Verse 11: “The magi came to the house where the young child was with his mother Mary. They bowed in reverence to Him. Then they opened the boxes of gifts they had brought for Him. The gifts they gave Him included gold, frankincense, and myrrh.” It is interesting to note that the Magi found Jesus in a “house,” not the stable, and Jesus is referred to as a young child. This indicates that their coming was quite a number of months after Jesus’ birth. The Law of Moses gave Mary and Joseph the procedure to follow after His birth.¹ From the scripture it is apparent that this had already been accomplished. Therefore, based on those requirements the arrival of the Magi was at the very earliest 40 days after Christ’s birth, but based on when they saw the star it could have taken as many as two years for them to get there.² Ironically, it is from the presentation of gifts that the theory for the number of Magi was formed. They brought many gifts, and among them the most expensive were gold, frankincense, and myrrh. This has led some to speculate that this constituted one gift per Magi. All of this is hypothesis, and should not be taken as a settled fact. As a matter of fact, in one of the oldest Hebrew versions of Matthew, this verse reads that they “opened their sacks, and brought to him gifts made of gold, frankincense and myrrh.”³ Hence, the Magi were elevated by some to the level of kings in fulfillment of prophecy.⁴ In the distinct gifts, Gold has been associated with Jesus as a sign of His being a King; Frankincense, as a symbol of His being a High Priest; and Myrrh as representative of His being a kinsman Redeemer. What the Psalmist wished for Solomon, was now being applied to One greater than Solomon, “May all the people who live in the desert bow down to him. May all his enemies bow before him with their faces in the dirt. May the kings of Tarshish and all the faraway lands by the sea bring gifts to him. May the kings of Sheba and Seba bring their tribute to him.”⁵

One thing to keep in mind is that often English words that are connotative with current definitions, may not be conveying the same message as they did in the days when the original words in Hebrew or Greek were written. One of them is the word “worship,” as used in the KJV and NIV, when it comes to paying honor and respect to persons of high rank or royalty. In fact, the Greek word proskyneō used here means: “To kiss the person’s hand as one bows in respect before them, as well as to fall on one’s knees and though the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence.” If we were to keep this definition for our use of the worship today, it appears that we fall woefully short when compared to what we do in the house of God and call it worship. As a boy I learned that when it came to the Queen of England, every man who came before her was expected to kneel on one knee, or curtsy if they were a woman. When the Magi came into the presence of the young Jesus, who was about two years old at the time, since He was considered a king, they showed their custom of bowing before Him out of honor and respect. It does not mean they worshiped Him as some god or idol. In our own society it was considered a sign of respect when someone curtsied before a teacher, elder or highly respected individual. Today this custom of bowing is more pronounced in Asia than on any other continent. In this case with the Magi, their bowing was also part of the ceremony of giving gifts to royalty.

Such was the case when Jacob sent his sons into Egypt to see Pharaoh, and they ended up giving them unknowingly to their brother Joseph.⁶ We also know that when the Queen of Sheba came to see Solomon, she too brought gifts, “She traveled to Jerusalem with a very large group of servants. There were many camels carrying spices, jewels, and a lot of gold,”⁷ as did the Psalmist wish for Solomon, “May the kings of Tarshish and all the faraway lands by the sea bring gifts to him. May the kings of Sheba and Seba bring their tribute to him. May all kings bow down to our king. May all nations serve him”.⁸ This last reference has been taken also as a hidden prophecy concerning the Messiah, and together with Isaiah,⁹ we see added: “They will bring gold and frankincense.” We are told by historians that these valuable items were standard gifts to honor a king or deity in the ancient world: gold as a precious metal, frankincense as perfume or incense, and myrrh as anointing oil. In fact, these same items were apparently among the gifts, recorded in ancient inscriptions, that King Seleucus II Callinicus offered to the god Apollo at the temple in Miletus in 243 BC. Rabbi David Kimchi, even though he used the Psalms and other O.T. Scriptures against Christians who took them as references for Jesus as the Messiah, agrees that gold and frankincense would be brought privately as presents to the king Messiah.¹⁰

It is also worthwhile to note that in Isaiah’s prophecy it says: “Jerusalem, get up and shine! Your Light is coming! The Glory of the Lord will shine on you. the Lord will shine on you, and his Glory will appear over you….Then the nations will come to your light…Herds of camels from Midian and Ephah will cross your land. Long lines of camels will come from Sheba. They will bring gold and incense. People will sing praises to the Lord.”¹¹ There is the linguistic possibility brought on by translation, that Isaiah said these camels and their riders would come from the direction of Midian and Ephah, which are both in the direction of Persia. It all depends on how they were led by the star. Although the New Testament does not give us the names for these Magi, nor how many there were, and only mentions that they brought gifts containing gold, frankincense and myrrh, there has been a lot of speculation. The Encyclopedia Britannica, under Magi (biblical figures), tells us that the names given to these magi were “derive from a Greek manuscript probably composed in Alexandria, Egypt around 500 AD, and which has been translated into Latin.¹² Also, German historian Hugo Kehrer quotes from the Latin chronicle: “At that time in the reign of Augustus, on 1st January the Magi brought him gifts and worshipped him. The Latin names of the Magi were Bithisarea, Melichior and Gathaspa.” He continues to say that the first magus, named Melchior, was an old white-haired man, with a full beard and hair, the king gave gold to our Lord. The second one, named Caspar, was a beardless boy, who gave frankincense. The third one, a dark-haired man with a full beard, named Balthasar, gave myrhh. The clothes of all three were Syrian-style. Kehrer also found that in that document, Melchior was considered to be a Persian scholar. The second magi, Caspar, was thought to be an Indian scholar. The third magi, Balthasar, was identified as an Arabian scholar. It goes on to say that the name “Jasper” or “Caspar” comes from France. It originated as part of a dialect spoken in the Cologne area of Germany, which includes the other names: Melcior and Baltazar.”¹³ In a Greek document from the 8^th century, of presumed Irish origin, and translated into Latin with the title “Collection of Flowers,” the tradition of three kings and their names is continued. However, according to Hiob Ludolph, these three magi were given different names in other languages. The one who gave gold was named “Annoson;” the one that brought frankincense was “Allytar;” and the one that offered myrrh was “Kyssad.”¹⁴ Church history also tells us that Francis of Assisi is credited with creating the first nativity scene in 1223 AD. It has grown ever since to include animals and individuals who could not have possible been there to join Joseph, Mary, Jesus, the mid-wife, and the donkey, that brought them from Nazareth, in the manger. But rather than criticizing such displays, it is better to take them as composite to recognize all those who eventually showed up to honor our Lord at the time of His birth and as a young child. In like manner, when we all gather around the throne of God in heaven, to worship the Lamb who was slain, it will not consist merely of those who initially arrived, but of everyone who came to the cross for salvation, from the first to the last. This should remind us of that grand old hymn sung many years ago that says: “Though millions have come, there is still room for one, there’s room at the cross for you.”

God is motivated more to act by what He thinks of you, than by what you think of Him. But what you think of Him will help determine how far He is willing to go. – Dr. Robert R Seyda